Mary and Joseph

[Ttalkkugjil]

But they didn't.

Many times, the Bible uses "brothers" without their necessarily having the same mother.

An example of this is in Matthew 1, where we read of "Judah and his brothers," though they actually had 4 mothers among them.

Jean Chauvin (to use the real name of John Calvin) believed and taught Mary's perpetual virginity.

Have never heard that before. Cite your source please.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

Wrong.

Nowhere does the Bible say Mary had children by Joseph.

It says Jesus had brothers and sisters.

 

[Strong in Him]

If she was 14, if, she was a child herself.

Only in our culture; not in the culture of that time.

14 year old girls, these days, are in school. In those days, women were not allowed to learn.
A 14 year old girl having a baby today would be criticised at the very least, and would also have broken the law. In those days young women had babies; it was normal.

But we don't know how old Mary and Joseph were.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

Only in our culture; not in the culture of that time.

14 year old girls, these days, are in school. In those days, women were not allowed to learn.
A 14 year old girl having a baby today would be criticised at the very least, and would also have broken the law. In those days young women had babies; it was normal.

But we don't know how old Mary and Joseph were.

Would the 14 year old girl have broken the law? I was unaware of that.

 

[Jonaitis]

Jean Chauvin (to use the real name of John Calvin) believed and taught Mary's perpetual virginity.

Yep. But what does he have to do with me? He also believed in infant baptism, which I believe was part of his leaning toward Romish beliefs (as some Reformed traditions still teach).

 

[Jonaitis]

It says Jesus had brothers and sisters.

They overlook the fact that no where does Scripture mention the brothers and sisters during the exodus to Egypt when Herod was about to slay the children in the vicinity of Bethlehem. We don't read about them by the manger when Mary gave birth, we don't read about them coming back with them to Nazareth, we don't read about them until long after the nativity events. His brothers and sisters must have been from Mary's womb.

It doesn't make sense for Mary to remain a virgin while being married.

 

[Strong in Him]

Would the 14 year old girl have broken the law? I was unaware of that.

Today, in the west, she would.
It is illegal to have sex with someone under the age of 16. If a girl has a baby, she can't deny that she's had sex.

In Jesus' day having a child at 14 or whatever - and we don't know how old Mary was - was pretty normal.

 

[ewq1938]

Wrong.

Nowhere does the Bible say Mary had children by Joseph.

It says it many times so you are the one wrong.

 

[Archivist]

It says it many times so you are the one wrong.

No, it doesn't say that. It says that Jesus had brothers and sisters. As was already pointed out, they could have been children from Joseph's first marriage.

 

[Archivist]

Today, in the west, she would.
It is illegal to have sex with someone under the age of 16. If a girl has a baby, she can't deny that she's had sex.

But is is legal for a girl to marry at age 14 in Alaska and North Carolina.

 

[Dave-W]

Sorry, I forget where, but I once read about Jesus' parents that at the time they were betrothed Mary was about 14 years old, while Joseph was about 40.

Is this accurate? Is it what church tradition says? Does anyone here find it a little creepy?

Not creepy. I doubt that Joseph was any more than 15. If he was 40 the marriage would have been consummated almost immediately after the betrothal.

13-15 was the average age of getting married in NT times.

 

[chilehed]

The Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.

That's how most English translations read, but the word is better translated as "kinsmen".

In my thinking, they were absolutely the biological children of Mary and Joseph.

That's not actually demanded by the texts, and there are very good reasons for thinking otherwise.
“Brethren of the Lord”

 

[Tokitee]

The Bible says Jesus did have half brothers. James, is a half brother to Jesus and wrote The book of James.

There are references John 7:5 and Matthew 13:55

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

That's how most English translations read, but the word is better translated as "kinsmen".

So says you.

That's not actually demanded by the texts, and there are very good reasons for thinking otherwise.
“Brethren of the Lord”

I believe there's better reasoning for holding that sisters and brothers means, you know, sisters and brothers.

 

[DamianWarS]

James was written early to mid first century, and by someone familiar with the gospels.

You must mean 2nd century and I think the contending dates are more mid to late 2nd century.

 

[Kerensa]

Also, the behaviour of Jesus' brothers towards him is consistent with them being older than Him. If Jesus was the eldest then He would have been the absolute head after Joseph passed away. They treat Him more like a celebrity younger brother.

That is a good point that I hadn't heard made before. But the clincher for me is this:

When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus. (Matt. 1:24-25)

That "until" pretty strongly implies that after the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph did have normal marital relations — otherwise, why bother to say it? Once Jesus was born, there was no need for Mary to remain a virgin — and if she had intended from the start to live as a perpetual virgin (which is one theory, that she had taken a vow before her marriage), why on earth would she have got married, and indeed what man would have agreed to marry her?

It doesn't really matter to me personally either way, whether Mary remained a virgin forever or not, but I do think the bulk of evidence and logic points to her having other children after Jesus.

 

[DamianWarS]

If she was 14, if, she was a child herself. I know many 14 year olds. Not one of them belongs with an adult male.

western culture doesn't prepare a 14yr old for marriage and they are very much children at this age. we can't just superimpose western cultural values over middle eastern culture 2000 years ago... it just doesn't work that way.

But as to the OP, I think the 40yr Joseph is just a way to reject that Mary had children and keep her as a virgin. There is an interesting article that talks about the gospel of James and although it says right out the church has rejected it, it strangely still seeks to pull out elements to ensure Mary remains a virgin on the basis that it is not mentioned anywhere so these elements must be true in this account. Unique elements unmentioned anyone else in a rejected text is a large flag. To me, it shows an irresponsible commitment to these Mariology values to such a degree the church is willing to pull out rejected texts of the church to affirm this position.

The article is from the perspective of Orthodox tradition and Orthodox tend to not care what affirms or not affirms their position, whatever is Orthodox is most important and anything that affirms these values then must be right and anything that reject it is wrong. I don't know how much credit this gives them but I don't see Orthodox tradition looking for a text to support their position but rather that this text happens to agree with it so they are pointing it out and affirming it agrees with that which is Orthodox.

 

[All4Christ]

Question: Why was Jesus responsible for handing off the care of Mary to John to “be his mother” and for him to “be her son” if there she has other biological children? Wouldn’t they be responsible for taking care of her? Why would his alleged biological brothers just accept this?

 

[HTacianas]

You must mean 2nd century and I think the contending dates are more mid to late 2nd century.

Yes, I did mean 2nd century. I always get that mixed up.

 

[Kerensa]

Question: Why was Jesus responsible for handing off the care of Mary to John to “be his mother” and for him to “be her son” if there she has other biological children? Wouldn’t they be responsible for taking care of her? Why would his alleged biological brothers just accept this?

That is a good point. I can see the arguments on both sides; I just don't see a clear reason why Mary should have remained a virgin after Jesus' birth.